#1: The argument from Quantity(P1) If maximal greatness could exist in reality, then it would be a quantity.(P2) Maximal greatness is the concept of the greatest greatness possible.(P3) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness is not a quantity and cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.

P1Comparable to how if an actual infinite could exist in reality, then infinity would be a number. Infinity is not a number, since the definition of number is 'a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or in noting a total' [1]. Since you cannot count to infninity (1), infinity is not a number.

P2Pretty straight-forward, unless Con wants to argue otherwise.

P3A quantity is by definition 'a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement.' [2], which means that we can assign it a number to give us an idea of how great (for example) something is. Since I've shown that there is no biggest number, I think that it's pretty self-explanatory that maximal greatness cannot exist in reality.

Notes(1) The word 'count' refers in the regular sense, meaning to count up (2) in positive integers starting from the number '1'.(2) The word 'up' is used in the sense where counting up means to go through the sequence of positive integers, with each next number being bigger than the last.

IntroductionWell, King and I both share a burden of proof in this debate. That means that I must present a positive case (arguing for the existence of god) as well as a negative case (refuting arguments against the existence of god). In this round, I will put forward my arguments in favor of the existence of god. Then, King will have an oppurtunity to respond to these arguments. After that, I'll rebutt the argument he gave in R2.

Contingency ArgumentP1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.P2) The universe exists.P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence.P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.P5) The explanation of the universe must be due to an external cause.P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.C: The external cause of the universe is god.

JustificationP1: This premise is based on the Principle of Sufficent Reason (PSR). This states that everything has an explanation of a reason for its existence. If I was hiking in the woods and I came across a ball, I would assume that either someone put it there, or it always existed. If you inflate that ball to the size of the cosmos, this doesn't change. So, it seems most probable that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence out of nessecity or contingency.

P2: If the universe doesn't exist, how are we debating each other?

P3: This follows logically from P1 and P2.

P4: We have astrophysical evidence that the universe began to exist. If the universe began to exist, then it cannot exist nessecarily.

P5: From P4, the only choice is that the universe exists because of an external cause.

P6: Spaceless because it existed before space. Timeless because it existed before time. Immaterial because it existed before matter. Omnipotent because of the great power required to cause the universe to exist. Personal because god must have intended for the universe to be created.

P7: If god did not have any of those traits, he would not be maximally great.

Moral ArgumentP1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.C) God exists.

JustificationP1: The least arbitary and most plausible source of objective moral value duties would be a maximally great being that exemplifies the standards of moral good. If this maximally great being does not exist, then it follows that there is no standard of objective moral values and duties.

P2: 1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral

2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily

3) Some objective moral knowledge exists

Therefore,

4) Moral truths exist.

Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

JustificationP1: The only way to prove this wrong is to show that it's impossible for a maximally great being exists.P2: Logically follows from P1.P3: A maximally great being must be an objective part of all reality in every possible world. If not, then the being you are talking about is not maximally great.P4: We are living in a possible world.P5: Logically follows from P4.

Of course, King has presented a counter-argument to this in his opening remark. I'll get to that in my next round.Vale.

Contingency ArgumentMy main problems with this argument come at Premise 6 and Premise 7. Why can't the universe be due to chance and why does God have to be maximally great? (Respectively)

Moral argumentWhen Con tries to defend the premise that says that Objective moral values and duties exist, he gives the following syllogism:

P1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoralP2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarilyP3) Some objective moral knowledge exists;C) Moral truths exist.The first problem I have with this argument is that it assumes that the morals have to be objective, yet people do disagree on what is right and what is wrong. For example, a Muslim may argue that apostasy, drawing a picture of Muhammad and eating pork are all wrong, but a non-Muslim may not think so. A would have moral content if he thought that P would enjoy the gift that he gave him, for example. The first premise states that 'For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then a cannot be amoral' Something may or may not be considered on someone's own subjective morality, but that does not make it fact.

Since the first premise states that without God objective moral values cannot exist, then I assume that Con's answer to Euthyphro's dilemma is that X is moral because God says so. Yet if this is true, then God could just as easily change his mind about what is moral or immoral. This means that morality is subjective, as it cannot be objective since God could easily just suddenly change his mind about morality. If he cannot do this, then he is not supplying us with morality.Ontological Argument There's one thing I want to clarify here. If something is possible, then it could exist. If something is not possible, then it cannot exist. A maximally great being is one who is maximal in all positive properties and has no lesser-making properties. The ontological argument implies that being omnipresent is a positive quality to have, yet I have no reason to see why it should be. Until Con proves that omnipresence is a positive property, since the automatic assumption is to assume that it is not a positive property, it is reasonable to assume that it is not a positive quality to have. If Con cannot prove that omnipresence is a positive property, then P3 doesn't make sense and therefore the whole argument falls down. A good source on exposing the modal ontological argument can be found here: [1]

Yet X property can be neutral, instead of positive or negative. If X property is negative, then God would have -X. If X property is positive, then God has X property. If X property is neutral, then God has neither -X or X, he simply has 0 of that property either way.

While I'm here, I may as well put up my own arguments:

God's Attributes

(P1) There are three attributes of existents which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified. B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute. (P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existent’s A in order to be considered meaningful. (P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A. (P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2) (P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless. (P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5) (C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

When someone says to you, "God exists", how do you normally respond? For most atheists, the answer is simply "prove it." However, this is a bit premature. Before we can get into whether or not God exists, we must first know what a God is. Indeed, many intellectuals have discussed and debated the subject as to what God is throughout history. The fact remains that from its original form, the ANC has stood as one of the most significant threats to the Christian/Theist worldview.

For example, consider the following dialogue[2]:

Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”

Mr. White: “Prove it.”

Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”

If this exchange seems less than satisfactory, much of the blame lies with Mr. White: his demand for proof was premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is; until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. As W. T. Blackstone puts it:

“Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faithis beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request forthe meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge.”

Conclusion

Until my opponent specifies what a God is, the god-concept is invalid and “god” is just an utterly meaningless sound.

The following argument is tied in nicely with the last. Theists have attempted to provide us with a list of what God is. According to the 1968 National Catholic Almanac, God is[3]:

As you noticed, these answer the secondary attribute, but fail to answer the primary attribute. Moreover, and more important, the above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?

Ave! I wish to thank KingDebater for posting his interesting arguments against the existence of god. In this round, I will support the arguments that I have given, and rebut my opponents.

The Argument from QuantityIt may interest the audience to know that I'm actually the person who came up with the Argument from Quantity. It was supposed to be used in a debate with KeytarHero about the ontological argument. It failed, and I recognize it as fallacious. It's surprising to me that somebody would still use it.

Imagine an elevator with a maximum capacity of two thousand pounds. It can hold two thousand pounds of people without breaking. Of course, you could conceive of that elevator holding two thousand and one pounds, and that's what the AFQ argues about god. The problem is, once it's established the maximum capacity is two thousand pounds, there is no sense in conceiving of that elevator holding anything me.

The fact that you can conceive of larger amounts of greatness does not mean that larger amounts of greatness can actually be possessed in practice. This is why the AFQ fails miserably. If the maximal greatness is 700, then I grant my opponent that could you think of 701 greatness. But, this does not mean that 701 greatness is something a being can actually posses. Until King connects conception with practice, this argument cannot stand.

Ultimately, what I"m putting forward is what I want to call the ""Theory-Practice"" distinction. This distinction is the axiom that ""The ability to conceive of something does not mean it can be done in practice"". This axiom, if it stands by the end of the debate, would demolish the AFQ.

Contingency ArgumentThis argument isn't about fine-tuning. It's about why the universe exists. If I had made the fine-tuning argument, then I would have to show that the universe could not have been how it was by chance. King's objection about chance simply isn't relevant here.

Why does god have to be maximally great? This is a silly question. King posted a definition of god in the first round, which defined him as 'A maximally great being who created the universe'. God is, by definition, maximally great!

Moral ArgumentThe term 'moral content' does not nessecarily mean the action is morally good. It simply means that the action can be thought of in terms of right and wrong. If I punch somebody in the face, that action has moral content. We can think of it as right or wrong. King seems to think that giving moral content to an action also means that you're calling it moral. That's not true at all.

King also argues that there is moral conflict over issues. Group X views A as moral, and Group Y views A as immoral, so the first premise must be false on his view. Like I pointed out in the last debate, all this observation does is support the premise.

'Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.''

Things are moral because god commands them, but since god's commands come from his nature, he cannot change them. If he calls X immoral, he has done so because his own morally perfect nature says so. If you took away god's morally perfect nature, then he wouldn't be god. Therefore, god's commands cannot change, because his nature cannot change.

Ontological ArgumentModal logic doesn't talk about the word 'great' as its usually used. It doesn't mean that a being is greater than another being in the same way that someone thinks a song is better than another song. The word 'great' just an arbitrary word to describe whether or not something can exist, what possible worlds it exists in, etc.

If X can exist in two possible worlds, and Y can exist in all possible worlds, then modal logic would call Y 'greater' than X. It does not mean greater in the context I mentioned earlier. It just means that it exists more.

Attributes ArgumentThis argument has no bearing on the existence of god. Note the conclusion of the argument, which states that the term "god" is meaningless. It doesn"t follow from this that god doesn"t exist. It"s just a semantic argument about the definition of the word "god".

I consider it very silly to enter a debate about the existence of god where the term "god" has already been defined, and then argue that there is no meaningful definition of god. King and I, by entering this debate, have already agreed on a definition of god. If he wants to debate whether there can be a definition of god that makes sense, then that"s a separate debate. For this one, we"ve already agreed on what god is.

It"s also clear that if my arguments in this debate stand, we know a lot of first attributes about god. God would have caused the universe to exist. That's a statement about the effects that god has on the things around it, fulfilling King's standard of a primary attribute. From that, P3 is false.

There's also no reason to accept his standard of what a meaningful term is. King, by way of bare assertion, argues that a term lacking A, B, and C is meaningless. However, he fails to give us any reason to believe that's true. He just lays down his standards and expects us to accept them as valid.

Rebuttals:ContingencyI don't think that Con has responded to me very well on this. I don't really think it's a good argument because it works like this:

(P1) The cause of Z must have Y qualities.(P2) X has Y qualities.(C) Therefore, X is the cause of Z.

It's the equivalent of saying this:

(P1) To have made that jam sandwich, you must have jam.(P2) I have jam.(C) Therefore, I made the jam sandwich.

I don't think I have to point out the invalidity further.

I would also question some of the qualities Con has claimed that the external cause of the universe must have.

Personal - Why should we assume that the only possible external cause of the universe is God when the big bang theory is a possible explanation for the universe as we know it and the big bang is not personal?

Omnipotent - Omnipotence isn't necessary. This hypothetical being just needs the power to create the universe.

MoralityCon's Claim: The term 'moral content' does not nessecarily mean the action is morally good. It simply means that the action can be thought of in terms of right and wrong. If I punch somebody in the face, that action has moral content. We can think of it as right or wrong. King seems to think that giving moral content to an action also means that you're calling it moral. That's not true at all.

But different people would think differently. This doesn't mean the morality is objective. We can think of a joke as funny, but someone else may not think so.

Con's Claim: Things are moral because god commands them, but since god's commands come from his nature, he cannot change them. If he calls X immoral, he has done so because his own morally perfect nature says so. If you took away god's morally perfect nature, then he wouldn't be god. Therefore, god's commands cannot change, because his nature cannot change

But if something is moral because God commands it, then there must be a time before God commanded it. Before God commanded it, God would not have a morally perfect nature as there would be no objective moral values or duties. Because of this, God could just command anything and then it would objective. But this isn't objective, this is subjective as it is only opinion.

Ontological One problem I have with the Ontological argument is the logic is it's just terrible. There's no reason why I can't have the being in question be an invisible omnipresent dog whose fur can be felt by anyone. But we obviously know that this dog does not exist.

Contingency ArgumentPro's paradoy is meant to show that somebody else could have made the jam sanwhich. In the same way, something else except god could have made the universe. P2 of his argument causes the paradoy to fail, because it's not an accurate parallel to the contingency argument. In the case of a jam sanwhich, it is easy to think of other people who have jam, so it doesn't nessecarily follow that you made the sandwhich. But god would be the only being with maximal greatness, omnipotence, spacelessness, timelessness, etc. Using Occam's razor, there is simply no reason to think of other beings like god that could have caused the universe. Since god alone is satisfactory to explain the beginning of the universe, we should not consider the existence of other beings that could have caused it as well.

Pro asks why the Big Bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe. The Big Bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe because it only tells us about a singularity and what happened to it. I'll quote from Wikipedia's article on the Big Bang.

'There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.'

From this, the Big Bang theory provides us a poor explanation of why the universe exists.

The great power and energy required to cause such an event would heavily imply omnipotence.

Moral ArgumentPro is very selective in the parts of the argument he answers. He quotes some of it, and then talks about how moral conflict shows moral truth does not exist. I've already answered this objection, and I've shown that it actually supports the argument for objective morality that I made. Remember what I said in the last round:

'King also argues that there is moral conflict over issues. Group X views A as moral, and Group Y views A as immoral, so the first premise must be false on his view. Like I pointed out in the last debate, all this observation does is support the premise.

'Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.''

Pro just ignores this part of my argument and re-states his objections as if they had gone unanswered!

Pro's other argument is easily answered. There was no time when God hadn't commanded it. That simply explanation completely destroys his argument against divine command theory.

Ontological ArgumentThere was a time in evolutionary history when dogs didn't exist. The maximally great being would exist out of necessity. If something didn't always exist, it does not exist out of necessity. From this, a dog cannot be maximally great.

Attribute ArgumentPro drops this argument from his case.

Argument from QuantityPro drops this argument from his case.

ConclusionPro presented two arguments against the existence of god, and dropped them all in this round. Because of this, he has failed to meet his burden of proof, and a vote for Con should be clear.

So TRUE devient: If it wasn't for modern medicine, like if I lived 100 years ago, I wouldn't be here.
I would have died at age 11, killed by an orange seed I accidentally swallowed.

Many thousands of lives like mine have been so lengthened by scientists that didn't believe in, nor trust in a god.
Yes, Every day in this modern world is a blessing, because it is a day I wouldn't have had if it was left up to nature or a god.

Mainstream scientists would rather stick to 21st Century knowledge than the words of the incas, aztecs and other outdated doctrine written by intellectually challenged humans, even if you call the writings holy :)

When you or a loved one are in the hospital, count the times a scientific advancement saves the day, and then count the times a prayer saved the day.

If the prayer score ever rises above zero, ask the doctor if you can schedule a psych appointment to deal with a possible delusion :)

Eliminate the ridicule and contempt by the christian nation towards homosexuality, and we'd have equal rights for all, less suicides among confused and scared gay teens :)

Keep coddling ignorance and blaming the gun, way to go christian nation, well played :)

LOL, this site can't even work properly consistently using cut & paste to avoid freezing, sometimes it freezes again and I end up with doubled up posts after hitting post multiple times in frustration.
It's a bad script running, because occasionally my system (Firefox browser running on Linux) allows me to kill the script, which afterwards this site will run without a single freeze.
I know it's not my system, because others are complaining about it also.
I get the same freezing when running Chrome IE or Firefox on XP, Win7 and Linux.
Firefox reports that the script is a Chrome script.
I've reported this to the site management, but no reply has been seen!
Maybe it's too hard for their incompetent web engineers.

"Evolution is solid science"the controversy is religious. Anti-evolutionists say that you can't accept evolution and be religious. The very existence of The Clergy Letter Project proves this wrong. Over 12,000 clergy members around the country teach their congregations that evolution and religion get along just fine, that faith is not the fragile thing that anti-evolutionists make it out to be. Thousands of religious leaders agree with scientists that evolution is solid science.

Evolution went through the ringer in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and it only came out stronger. "
As I have said, but this time from a more authoritative source:
From: http://www.teachthemscience.org...

"Evolution is solid science"the controversy is religious. Anti-evolutionists say that you can't accept evolution and be religious. The very existence of The Clergy Letter Project proves this wrong. Over 12,000 clergy members around the country teach their congregations that evolution and religion get along just fine, that faith is not the fragile thing that anti-evolutionists make it out to be. Thousands of religious leaders agree with scientists that evolution is solid science.

Evolution went through the ringer in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and it only came out stronger. "

There's lots more.
Scientists are seeing the proof of evolution every day, inside and outside laboratories.
The development of resistant strains of influenza viruses, evolution of superbugs and the techniques required in trying to defeat them all require in depth knowledge of evolutionary principles.
This need for knowledge of the principles of evolution in medicine is proof of evolution.
Learning evolution is mandatory in biology and medicine.
If students do not learn the principles of evolution, they will not be able to solve the biological problems we face in the future with resistant microbes, viruses and even cancer research.

Wrong koulbeans, again!
Irrational inferences like random processes cannot produce life only shows your lack of knowledge of the processes involved.
Fact! Nothing is random!
Fact! The processes have forces involved that make it more likely such formations will take place in the right circumstances.
The counterparts (molecules) that form RNA and DNA have a natural attraction to each other and the process that binds them is entirely natural.

You are only displaying you lack of knowledge all things scientific in your posts.
You need to start on some form of an education, before you can question that you know absolutely nothing about and cannot even understand the basics.
Chemistry 101, then Biology 101 would be a great start m8.

No physical evidence for Creation? Yet there is no proof, random or in the science lab, that an orderless thing can suddenly come into being an ordered system of state, without the assistance of an outside control. Random car parts didn't just come together to be a car, all by itself, w/o an engineer, w/o the assembly team. A true evolutionist couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't, care about the extinction of a species. It would actually be good thing-let the strong survive and weak die, allowance for a new and stronger species to arise. Thus, our society can be a stronger being, surviving to the next age in the millennium.
Any answers concerning modern ethics and morality?

Sagey. Good to hear ur side. I'm trying to get away from negative name-calling & the blame game but, rather enter into these concepts deeper to understand each other better. Again, physical evidence can be argued from both sides, creation vs evolution. Yet only when we die will we find that out. I want to move from that discussion. Call it what we want but, in the end there is an "objective truth holder", and our accountability is to that then? Ethics. What if a certain society has not caught up to our modern ethics? Can we judge them by our ethics? Animals? Their ethics have not evolved to our status yet. Would it be unjust to judge someone or an animal by our developed ethics? If we said it was right to judge others by our standards, who has that right to make that call? Ur thoughts please. Thanks.

BTW! Koulbeans!
Again: The 'Truth Holder' is nature.
All our laws that science has uncovered, all existed since the 'Big Bang' and they are all just the laws and forces of nature.
Science is humans investigating these already existing laws.
These laws make up all our sciences and even our ethics.

Ethics are just natural laws of survival of a community, nothing more.
Modern ethics is far superior to bible based Christian ethics.
Our ethics are more thorough, better defined and take into account human difficulties and frailties.
Yes, our modern secular, humanistic ethics are more ethical than Christian ethics.